From: Steve Tucker (stevet@megsinet.net)
Date: Mon Jun 07 1999 - 00:04:44 MDT
"Joe E. Dees" wrote:
> Date sent: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 21:40:52 -0500
> From: Steve Tucker <stevet@megsinet.net>
> Subject: Re: [GUNS] a comment
> To: extropians@extropy.com
> Send reply to: extropians@extropy.com
>
> > Actually, I was an anti-gunner until someone challenged my views, and I checked
> > the evidence and arguments.
> > - Steve
> >
> What is the scientific evidence that it is safe to allow violent
> criminals, kids and the certifiably insane the free and unfettered
> right to keep and bear?
> Breathlessly Waiting, Joe
My intention is to bow out of this argument, since it is no doubt harming the list
and no solid evidence has been presented or challenged to refute the "guns in the
hands of responsible citizens make for a safer society" idea. However (sigh) I feel
compelled to respond to Joe's insinuations and publicly take his words out of my
mouth (ptooie).
Neither I nor anyone else (afaik) who has posted in this debate claimed that it is
safe or desirable to place guns in the hands of Joe's interminably-repeated list of
likely gun abusers. Joe, when I say that I am no longer an anti-gunner, it does
_not_ mean I have decided that putting guns in the hands of the insane et al is a
positive thing. How you could have made that leap in good faith is beyond me. I am
obviously not going to produce evidence to back a claim I never made and do not
support, so you may as well go ahead and breathe.
However, and perhaps this is the point that has been lost, just because I (and
perhaps some others) agree with you in principle does *not* necessarily mean that we
believe your proposed solution will be effective, or that it will not have unintended
negative side effects. This point has been made many times by myself and others.
I (and I suspect others) harbor doubts that these laws will be effective. Economics
teaches us that a demand will always find a supplier. Experience informs us that an
unreformed violent criminal (insane or not) will not be greatly deterred from
breaking yet another law if they're already in the process of breaking several
others. I believe it is already illegal for most of these individuals to purchase
guns, yet as far as I know there is no particular dearth of repeat offenders in
gun-related crimes. I believe another poster mentioned Chicago, where gang-bangers'
demand for guns they could not legally purchase resulted in a black market being
supplied by the Chicago cops(!).
Your response has been that your solution must actually be implemented before any
judgement or prediction can be made as to its effects. (I must confess I am not
aware (and too tired to research it now)--is it actually legal for convicted felons
or the criminally insane to purchase guns now, anywhere?) I am not certain that a
good percentage of your solution hasn't already been implemented.
The responses I have seen posted to the idea of trying your solution mostly relate to
the oft-mentioned slippery slope which governmental solutions often traverse. I
believe this is a valid concern--history shows that a tool placed in the hands of a
government is often used for unintended purposes; and is almost never relinquished
regardless of how poor the results.
In reponse to this, you have stated that in a democracy, any official who misuses
such a law would either be influenced by the voters to change his actions, or be
removed from office. I am far more cynical in this area than you. In my
observations of the legislative and enforcement process I have rarely seen instances
of officials held accountable for such deeds (except for certain high-visibility
exceptions), and have seen nothing to persuade me that this is likely to improve
anytime soon.
In my opinion, it is entirely reasonable to ask what the effects of a change are
before making the change. If there is reason to doubt the change will have the
desired effect, and/or reason to suspect the change will have other negative effects,
it is also reasonable to search for alternative ways to achieve the desired effect.
Simply reiterating that it must be tried proves nothing. I could as easily claim
that mandatory gun ownership for everybody is the solution, and in the face of your
doubts insist that it must be tried to be invalidated. The logic is equivalent, and
I can claim that solution is as "obviously" right to me as yours is to you. But it
proves nothing. (Pre-flame note: I do _not_ support mandatory gun ownership for
everybody--this was only an example, please go back to your normally scheduled
activities.... :-)
So, to wind this up, and hopefully never return, I share what I believe is your
desire, which is to remove weapons from people who will misuse them. (In fact, if we
could definitively identify these people we should probably do more than that.)
However, I have doubts that the laws you proposed would be effective, and am
concerned that, if enacted, they would be (mis)used by the government in ways
unintended by you. You, on the other hand, believe your laws would be effective and
that government officials could and would be brought to task if they attempted to
misuse these laws. I believe the most productive result of this debate is for us to
agree that we disagree on these points, and to look for other topics likely to
produce more "extropian" debates.
- Steve
"Joe E. Dees" wrote:
> Date sent: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 21:40:52 -0500
> From: Steve Tucker <stevet@megsinet.net>
> Subject: Re: [GUNS] a comment
> To: extropians@extropy.com
> Send reply to: extropians@extropy.com
>
> > Actually, I was an anti-gunner until someone challenged my views, and I checked
> > the evidence and arguments.
> > - Steve
> >
> What is the scientific evidence that it is safe to allow violent
> criminals, kids and the certifiably insane the free and unfettered
> right to keep and bear?
> Breathlessly Waiting, Joe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:01 MST